Logica Utens

The Appeal to Regulative Assumptions

2010-01-07T07:05:00.001-08:00

Contrary to what you might expect, pragmatists don't typically try to undermine the argument presented in my last post (i.e. the problem of lost facts). Instead, a fairly common reply - what I call the Appeal to Regulative Assumptions, or ARA for short - involves making a concession of sorts. (see esp. Misak's book Truth & The End of Inquiry). This runs as follows (this is a very rough paraphrase - not Misak's words):

We pragmatists do not assert (T), nor are we committed to saying there is any justification to do so. Our claim is that (T) is a regulative assumption of inquiry. This is to say that one must assume (T) in order to inquire rationally into the truth of any hypothesis. If one did not assume that properly conducted inquiry would lead one to the truth*, there would be no point inquiring.

There is a caveat to this, as indicated by 'truth*'. We have to bear in mind that the Peircean thinks of truth (esp. qua aim of inquiry) in a unique way, a way which Peirce discusses in The Fixation of Belief. Peirce maintains that what we aim for when we inquire is stable belief (n.b. this is a descriptive, not a normative claim). Crucially, this does not mean we are dogmatic, that we wish to cling to any old belief come hell or high water (the so-called 'method of tenacity'). Rather, Peirce is saying that in seeking truth we seek a belief that will remain stable even in the face of the very best future inquiries, even in the face of all future evidence. (Several commentators have likened this to the notion of superassertibility found in Crispin Wright's Truth & Objectivity, which is ironic, given that Wright is highly critical of (what he takes to be) the Peircean conception of truth in that book).

So the claim involved in the ARA is that if one does not assume that properly conducted inquiry will yield truth*, that is, yield a stable or superassertible belief, there would be no point inquiring.

Now this seems to me a very risky move for the pragmatist to make. The ARA involves invoking a new technical notion (the 'regulative assumption') which requires a good deal of unpacking and explanation, as well as some intuitive or at least theoretical precedents. (We find the latter in Kant's first critique, but the relevant (rather obscure) passages provide scant reason to endorse or deploy the notion without the confines of Kant's architectonic). The ARA also relies on the controversial claim that truth* is our only possible aim in inquiry, when most people nowadays have abandoned this idea. (see e.g. in philosophy of science, where in the face of arguments like the pessimistic meta-induction, many consider empirical adequacy or warranted assertibility the most we can sensibly aim for).

We should also perhaps acknowledge that fans of the problem of lost facts might find this unsatisfying on a more basic level. The problem seems to show that even merely assuming T is true leads to a contradiction (in cases of lost facts). Why isn't this a good enough reason to abandon (T)? Shouldn't we eschew assuming things that lead to contradictions, even if that means revising our cognitive goals (or lowering our logical expectations)?

Thus, the direction I'm leaning at the moment is that the pragmatist's best defence is to provide two things:

A demonstration that either (T) does not lead to contradictions concerning lost facts, or (T) does generate such contradictions, but this is non-problematic.
An explanation and defence of the notion of a 'regulative assumption' which establishes (what Wright calls) an entitlement to expect that suitably diligent inquiry will yield the truth*, that is, an entitlement to assume T.

This Morning's Musings

2010-01-05T05:34:00.001-08:00

An hour's worth of sketchy ideas for a possible paper on the Problem of Lost Facts...

Charles Sanders Peirce was the founder of ‘pragmatism’ - a view about the appropriate method for settling intellectual and metaphysical disputes. Peirce aspired to use this method to elucidate the ‘pragmatic meaning’ of important concepts such as truth. Specifically, the purpose of the method is to describe the role those concepts (in this case truth) play in our practices (in this case inquiry). Many Peirceans consider a claim such as the following to be part of a pragmatist conception of truth (n.b. the nested nature of the beast is marked by parentheses)

(T) If a hypothesis H is true, then (if inquiry into H were pursued long enough and well enough, then H would be believed).

(T) faces a standard objection, which is often called the ‘problem of lost facts’. (There are other objections of course, about triviality in particular, but I'm not tackling them here). I propose to defend (T) against this counter-argument, which begins with the putative lost fact that “Churchill sneezed 59 times in 1945” - a hypothesis we’ll call H1:

If a hypothesis H is true, then (if inquiry into H were pursued long enough and well enough, then H would be believed). (i.e. we assume (T) for reductio)
H1 is true. (Supported by the broadly realist intuition that there is some definite number of times Churchill sneezed in 1945. Prima facie it does not matter that we are unable to determine the correct number.)
If H1 is true, then (if inquiry concerning H1 were pursued long enough and well enough then H1 would be believed).
It is not the case that (if inquiry concerning H1 were pursued long enough and well enough then H1 would be believed). (i.e. the relevant fact is ‘lost’)
So H1 is not true.
H1 is true and H1 is not true. (i.e assuming T generates a contradiction.)
So it is not the case that if a hypothesis H is true, then (if inquiry into H were pursued long enough and well enough, then H would be believed). (i.e. by RAA the Peircean conception of truth is false.)

My attempts to render this formally suggest it is valid...

∀x (Fx ⊃ (Gx ⊃ Hx)) Premise
∃x (Fx) Premise
∃x (Fx ⊃ (Gx ⊃ Hx)) From 1 & 2
∃x ¬ (Gx ⊃ Hx) Premise
¬ (∃x (Fx)) From 1-4
∃x (Fx) ∧ ¬ (∃x (Fx)) From 1-5
¬ ∀x (Fx ⊃ (Gx ⊃ Hx)) From 1-6

...since it relies on fairly safe logical moves such as the universal-particular syllogism, modus tollens and RAA. My current suspicion is that the fault with this argument lies in premise 4. Specifically, I’m not sure the opponent of pragmatism can get away with straight up asserting that H1 is lost. Isn’t the most they can assert that it is possible or perhaps likely that H1 is lost - that no amount of inquiry will lead us to the relevant sort of belief? If so, does this substantially weaken the argument (or am I being overly optimistic?)

Premise 2 is also a bit fishy though. Perhaps its prima facie harmlessness is only prima facie.

Petition & Impact

2009-10-18T03:40:00.000-07:00

I think it's well worth all UK academics thinking about whether or not they wish to sign this petition. I did.

Feminist Metaphysics

2009-06-14T07:10:00.001-07:00

These are some thoughts I had recently after a meeting of my reading group at Sheffield on Feminism. I should make it clear from the outset that I consider myself a feminist, though some of what follows will no doubt strike some as somehow antithetical to contemporary philosophical feminism. I don't see it that way, but as ever I welcome comments and criticism...

Is there such a thing as ‘feminist metaphysics’? I don’t think so. Sally Haslanger (in her piece on Feminism & Metaphysics in Cambridge Companion to Feminism in Philosophy) rightly observes that whether you’re a realist or anti-realist is essentially irrelevant to central feminist concerns about how women are treated. Sure, sexist individuals may try to appeal to some ‘essential features of’ or ‘biological facts about’ women in order to justify treating them differently. Those people make a very familiar error – trying to derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. One can believe in a fixed essence for women and still consider that essence quite irrelevant to questions of social policy, just as one can admit to various biological facts about the difference between people of African and Caucasian descent without thinking it has any moral or political significance for how we should treat the two groups. Once that’s been conceded, we can recognise that one’s stance on metaphysical issues has nothing to do with one’s stance on feminist issues.

In our reading group on this article, someone suggested the following responses to this line of thought. First, ordinary metaphysicians do not, by and large, concern themselves with analysing the concept ‘woman’, nor with any other concepts generally of most interest to feminists (they’re usually too busy worrying about time, causation, dispositions, etc.). Whilst it may not matter to questions of social policy what constitutes a ‘woman’, it MAY matter, and even if it doesn’t, what makes a person a woman will certainly be interesting for feminists investigating (e.g.) issues about gender identity, trans-sexuality, etc. Thus, feminism has a role to play in metaphysics in the following sense: feminists should start working on those neglected areas of metaphysics that are interesting to and relevant for feminists. In doing so, the thought goes, they are doing ‘feminist metaphysics’, since there is a clear political agenda in the offing (to draw attention to feminist issues and if possible get them to command some respect among ‘ordinary’ metaphysicians).

This is clearly a laudable enterprise. Nevertheless, I remains unconvinced that it shows there is such a thing as feminist metaphysics.

If Sally is doing a scientific investigation into the nature of a virus, she is doing virology. Sally is still doing virology if her motivation is to save the lives of millions of innocent people. Just as Sally is still doing virology if her motivation is that she thinks that viruses are neat. Motivation does not define an area of inquiry.

If the results of Sally’s inquiry are of interest to terrorists who want to manufacture biological weapons, that does not mean that Sally is doing Terrorist Virology. Sally is still doing plain old Virology. The people to whom the results of an inquiry are relevant also does not define the area of inquiry in question, since any inquiry may be relevant to any number of different groups.

My intuition is that what defines an area of inquiry is most likely to be its subject-matter, perhaps combined with the methods employed. If that’s right, then feminists doing metaphysics are, to the best of my knowledge, doing plain old metaphysics, regardless of their motives and regardless of whether their results are interesting or important for feminist philosophy.

So, the only sense I can make of the idea of ‘feminist metaphysics’ is that it is ordinary metaphysics that is (a) motivated by feminist concerns, (b) relevant or interesting to feminists or (c) done by someone who happens to be a feminist. All of those things still seem to be plain old metaphysics to me, though I don’t dispute that having a label for those areas of inquiry might be rather useful (though I wonder if such a label could possibly have a determinate extension).

Hiatus

2009-02-08T13:33:00.001-08:00

From tomorrow onwards and for the next few months, I'm mounting a big push in the interest of furthering my academic career (perhaps I should say, in the interest of acquiring an academic career). In doing so I'm trimming down my life to its bare essentials, which will mean no posts on here for at least a month or two. Wish me luck.

At Last... A Fellow TED Addict!

2009-01-26T02:25:00.000-08:00

Phew. I am not alone. It turns out Virginia Heffernan is also addicted to the inspirational website hosting talks given at TED (the annual Technology, Education and Design conference).

Once you start watching TED talks, ordinary life falls away. The corridor from Silicon Alley to Valley seems to crackle, and a new in-crowd emerges: the one that loves Linux, organic produce, behavioral economics, transhistorical theories and “An Inconvenient Truth.” Even though there are certain TED poses that I don’t warm to — the dour atheist, the environmental scold — the crowd as a whole glows with charisma. I love their greed for hope, their confidence in ingenuity, their organized but goofy ways of talking and thinking.

Thanks again to Richard.

Belated Photo of the Day

2009-01-24T03:52:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's photos were a disappointment, so I'm offering you something by someone much more talented. Check out this extraordinary 100 meter long photograph by Simon Hoegsberg. Truly inspired. (Thanks Richard!)

Inauguration Aftermath

2009-01-22T08:33:00.000-08:00

Two diverting bits of aftermath (all the more diverting when you're supposed to be marking!):

The Big Picture's typically high-quality round-up of photos from the big day.

The NYT's analysis of two little (huge) things Obama mentioned in his speech. I too am particularly curious about why Obama didn't mention Iraq or Afghanistan in that refrain.

Photo of the Day

2009-01-22T07:24:00.000-08:00

I apologise for the prevalence of self-portraits, but since Laura is away and I'm in marking seclusion for a week or so, it's just the easiest subject. I swear I'll choose something else tomorrow!

Photo of the Day

2009-01-21T06:50:00.000-08:00

Since all I do right now is mark (and occasionally take breaks to post here!), this seemed only fitting. I'm quite pleased with this though - it was a first take!

Photo(s) of the Day

2009-01-20T02:03:00.000-08:00

I recently upgraded my camera (when the old one snuffed it), and for this and other reasons I've decided to try producing at least one half-decent photograph every day. I may post these from time to time. Here are the daily photos from the past four days...

I'm spending all of my time (when I'm not taking breaks to post on my blog!) marking exam papers this week. I'm about 20 down and 280 to go at this moment. I can't see it being done by Friday, but hey, there might be some kind of productivity miracle.

The Economy

2009-01-07T18:05:00.000-08:00

Like most people, I understand relatively little about the current economic climate, and have become rather bored of hearing about it. Nevertheless, this struck me as an informative, original and compelling point of view (as well as a very scary one). No doubt it will be largely ignored - his point about 'austerity' seems bang on. Neverthless, I sympathise to this extent: isn't there something pretty counter-intuitive, when faced with a situation where everyone (companies and individuals) suddenly have considerably less money, to decide to spend a lot more of it?

More Slaves Now than at Any Time in History

2008-12-31T11:26:00.000-08:00

This is very frightening, and deserves to be read and acted upon (in whatever small way) by everyone.

Pictures from California

2008-12-29T11:13:00.000-08:00

US Action on Climate Change... No, really!

2008-11-18T13:07:00.000-08:00

This, assuming it turns out to be possible given the financial crisis, is potentially very exciting news for the future of the human race:

“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change,” Mr. Obama said. “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.”

He commended by name governors who had been particularly active on global warming — including those of Kansas, Florida, Illinois, California and Wisconsin — and said that many businesses were also “doing their part by investing in clean energy technologies.”

“But too often,” Mr. Obama said, “Washington has failed to show the same kind of leadership.”

“That will change when I take office,” he continued. “My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs.”

What a refreshing contrast to the last eight years!

Some Recent Photo Vignettes

2008-11-02T06:05:00.001-08:00

Laura's glass ornaments, which adorn our window sill (they're originally from the middle east I believe).

Our geranium (a kind present from Laura's dad, Mike) which is flowering cheerfully despite the recent cold and gloomy weather.

Autumn is abundantly obvious from our living room window!

Thank You Colin Powell

2008-10-19T10:57:00.001-07:00

At last, a prominent politician, and a Republican to boot, has said what I've been waiting weeks for someone to say about the repeated accusation that Obama is a Muslim - namely, 'Even if he were a Muslim, so what?'. Thank you Colin Powell for finally recognising and responding to these repeated displays of appalling racism.

The Big Picture on World Animal Day

2008-10-17T14:22:00.001-07:00

These are some of the finest photographs I've ever seen, especially 19 and 37. Stunning.

Now Non-US Residents can vote in the US election!

2008-10-12T05:34:00.001-07:00

This is a brilliant idea, and the results so far (though on reflection unsurprising) are fairly amazing...

http://www.economist.com/vote2008/

Late addition: a timely piece on just this topic from Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/10/uselections2008.barackobama

"The world's verdict will be harsh if the US rejects the man it yearns for. An America that disdains Obama for his global support risks turning current anti-Bush feeling into something far worse."

Sheer paranoia vs. the end of democracy

2008-10-10T05:50:00.000-07:00

I share the sentiments of the author of this piece in the Independent. I really hope we're being paranoid, and that this is all just rumour, hearsay or propaganda (or all three). Nevertheless, one can't help but feel frightened by this sort of thing:

[Republicans'] first vote-stripping tactic is to require elaborate voter identification that black people disproportionately lack. For example, in Indiana – a crucial swing state – Republicans have passed a law requiring voters to bring an official government document bearing their photograph to the polling station. But a study by the University of Wisconsin found that 53 per cent of black adults didn't have a passport or driving licence, compared to 15 per cent of white people. So they can't vote unless they travel for hours (often without a car) to a sparse government registry and queue for half a day to get the correct documentation. The former political director of the Texas Republican Party, Royal Masset, explains: "Requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a drop-off in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 per cent to the Republican vote." Their second tactic is to strip the electoral rolls of black names. In almost all US states, criminals lose their vote for life. This is shocking in itself – it disenfranchises a quarter of all black men in Kentucky, for one. But many states have a sloppy process where they simply scrub anyone with the same name as a criminal off the list. So if there is a criminal called "Chris Wayne" in a county, every black man called "Chris Wayne" loses their vote. That's a lot of Democrats. In Florida in 2000, black voters made up 13 per cent of the electorate yet they were 26 per cent of the people wrongly disenfranchised.

[Via Richard]

The Republicans Mutilate the English Language

2008-10-08T05:39:00.001-07:00

I've just discovered these two excellent pieces in the New York Times about the extraordinary ways in which McCain and Palin are disfiguring the English language. A highlight from the Palin piece:

She dangles gerunds, mangles prepositions, randomly exiles nouns and verbs and also — “also” is her favorite vamping word — uses verbs better left as nouns, as in, “If Americans so bless us and privilege us with the opportunity of serving them,” or how she tried to “progress the agenda.”

GM Foods: The Debate Returns

2008-10-06T04:40:00.001-07:00

There was an interesting piece in the Observer this weekend about how the GM foods debate seems to have been re-ignited by signs that the UK Government is beginning to push a pro-GM agenda. I consider myself very lucky to live in the UK where we have good information about the content and origins of most of our foods, and good organic food is readily available and (mostly) affordable. In the US you could be (and probably are) eating GM soya or corn much of the time and not realise it. Whilst I'm not against GM on principle, I do think that for all the complex ins and outs of Jay Rayner's Observer piece, the situation is quite simple. There is little or no agreement about the science, so surely it's far too early for us to be introducing GM foods en masse into the world's food supply?

Imagine an alternative scenario: say scientists couldn't agree on whether or not a particular chemical is harmful or beneficial to human health. Would anyone seriously suggest we add it to the water supply? Surely the only reasonable reaction to such a proposal would be this: let's do some more tests and experiments first, until we've secured at least a broad consensus on the matter, and then have the debate...

Perhaps I'm missing something?

A Movie Review... of TV (and politics)

2008-10-05T12:45:00.001-07:00

I wonder if this is unprecedented...A prominent movie critic reviews a presidential debate (broadcast, naturally, on television). Either way, I agree with Rogert Ebert whole-heartedly:

I do not like you, John McCain. My feeling has nothing to do with issues. It has to do with common courtesy. During the debate, you refused to look Barack Obama in the eye. Indeed, you refused to look at him at all. Even when the two of you shook hands at the start, you used your eyes only to locate his hand, and then gazed past him as you shook it... If you came to dinner at my house and refused to look at or speak with one of my guests, that would be bad manners and I would be offended. Same thing if I went to your house. During the debate, you were America's guest.

What was your problem?

America's Crippling Partisan Culture?

2008-10-04T08:25:00.000-07:00

Glory be! I've just read a story by a Republican journalist that I not only agreed with, but which struck me as measured, sensible and containing several platitudes. Amidst all the often disingenuous-sounding talk of 'bi-partisanship' we hear in the election debates, I'm delighted to have detected the real thing in such a high profile place. Writing about the hysterical reactions of many Republicans to her recent denouncement of Sarah Palin, Kathleen Parker of The Washington Post writes:

The picture is this: Anyone who dares express an opinion that runs counter to the party line will be silenced. That doesn't sound American to me, but Stalin would approve.

Readers have every right to reject my opinion. But when we decide that a person is a traitor and should die for having an opinion different from one's own, we cross into territory that puts all freedoms at risk. (I hear you, Dixie Chicks.)

I'm sure it is coincidence that, upon the Palin column's publication, a conservative organization canceled a speech I was scheduled to deliver in a few days. If I were as paranoid as the conspiracy theorists are, I might wonder whether I was being punished for speaking incorrectly.

You can read the rest of the article here.

The New Yorker endorses Obama

2008-10-03T06:42:00.001-07:00

The editors of the New Yorker have written an extremely compelling statement endorsing Obama. Initially I worried the piece would be overburdened with statistics, but even if you share that concern, keep reading. By the end even I felt patriotic, and it isn't even my country (though I hope one day soon it will be). I've posted an excerpt below, but you can find the whole thing here.

The longer the campaign goes on, the more the issues of personality and character have reflected badly on McCain. Unless appearances are very deceiving, he is impulsive, impatient, self-dramatizing, erratic, and a compulsive risk-taker. These qualities may have contributed to his usefulness as a “maverick” senator. But in a President they would be a menace.
By contrast, Obama’s transformative message is accompanied by a sense of pragmatic calm. A tropism for unity is an essential part of his character and of his campaign. It is part of what allowed him to overcome a Democratic opponent who entered the race with tremendous advantages. It is what helped him forge a political career relying both on the liberals of Hyde Park and on the political regulars of downtown Chicago. His policy preferences are distinctly liberal, but he is determined to speak to a broad range of Americans who do not necessarily share his every value or opinion. For some who oppose him, his equanimity even under the ugliest attack seems like hauteur; for some who support him, his reluctance to counterattack in the same vein seems like self-defeating detachment. Yet it is Obama’s temperament—and not McCain’s—that seems appropriate for the office both men seek and for the volatile and dangerous era in which we live. Those who dismiss his centeredness as self-centeredness or his composure as indifference are as wrong as those who mistook Eisenhower’s stolidity for denseness or Lincoln’s humor for lack of seriousness.

I think one reason this appealed to me so much is that I've been thinking a lot about the influence of temperament on philosophers and philosophy while working on my pragmatism lectures on William James.

(Via Richard)

US Election 08: Link of the Day

2008-10-02T07:26:00.000-07:00